# Resolved: Morality is BS **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 9, 2009, 3:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-morality-is-bs/495820 "2009-05-09T03:30:46Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2009, 3:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-morality-is-bs/495820/61 "2009-05-10T15:16:57Z")
> [@Grumman](#): > > **Rand Rover** is not a libertarian, as shown by his support for the deliberate use of force against innocent bystanders, as long as they’re foreigners. He is an anarchist and a sociopath. Please don’t slander our good name in this way. He’s no anarchist. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2009, 3:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-morality-is-bs/495820/62 "2009-05-10T15:33:53Z")
> [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](#): > > Exactly. They are _historical_ societies. Those that are around today generally appear to move in the direction of equality on that front. (Of course, the boarders here are somewhat ill defined. Is USA today truly the same society as USA 1950?) Some of those societies lasted for thousands of years. Look, for example, at India’s caste system: it was around a lot longer than our gender-equal society (such that it is) has been around. I just don’t think there’s evidence to support your proposition. > [@](#): > > I’m using it in exactly that sense, broadly speaking. > It’s not wrong, and I don’t think I’ve claimed it was. It’s just that the society does not exist any more. It’s a selection process, in which societies with morals that lead to inner stability are favoured. It appears to me that you’re considering morals to be society-specific rather than universal propositions to which societies (or, more accurately, individuals) hold to a greater or lesser degree. Is this correct? ---
**Author:** ![Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/half_man_half_wit/32/21766_2.png) [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Half_Man_Half_Wit)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2009, 3:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-morality-is-bs/495820/63 "2009-05-10T15:51:25Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > Some of those societies lasted for thousands of years. Look, for example, at India’s caste system: it was around a lot longer than our gender-equal society (such that it is) has been around. I did point out that my little thought experiment was not very realistic; there are a lot of different factors to account for in the real world. If, for instance, a persecuted group consists of about five people, they simply don’t have the means to change society in any appreciable way. But still, think of societies where oppression of some class was a direct cause in their downfall/revision – think of revolutions and all that jazz. What emerged from each of those events where societies with altered morals. > [@](#): > > It appears to me that you’re considering morals to be society-specific rather than universal propositions to which societies (or, more accurately, individuals) hold to a greater or lesser degree. Is this correct? I do believe morality to be a societal construct, rather than something universal, yes. I don’t think there is any gold standard of good and evil. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2009, 4:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-morality-is-bs/495820/64 "2009-05-10T16:14:29Z")
> [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](#): > > I do believe morality to be a societal construct, rather than something universal, yes. I don’t think there is any gold standard of good and evil. Oh, okay–I was responding to someone who claimed that he was describing objective morality. ---
**Author:** ![Heffalump\_and\_Roo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/heffalump_and_roo/32/7691_2.png) [@Heffalump\_and\_Roo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Heffalump_and_Roo)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2009, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-morality-is-bs/495820/65 "2009-05-10T18:23:58Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > 😕 The entire rest of my post explained how you determine what is good and what is evil. Indeed, if you hadn’t snipped just that line, the sentence directly before it is a summary: “Ergo objective morality: the satisfaction of preferences and desires is prima facie good (i.e., should happen), and the thwarting of preferences and desires is prima facie bad (i.e., shouldn’t happen).” I’m as confused as you. Perhaps (and only perhaps), I’ve found the reason for the disconnect. After googling objective morality, I found that people could be using the term in one of a number of ways. > [@](#): > > [Moral objectivism](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_objectivism) may refer to: > > ``` > * Robust moral realism, the meta-ethical position that ethical sentences express factual propositions about robust or mind-independent features of the world, and that some such propositions are true. > * Moral universalism (also called minimal or moderate moral realism), the meta-ethical position that some system of ethics or morality is universally valid, without any further semantic or metaphysical claim. > * Objectivist ethics, the ethical branch of Ayn Rand's Objectivist philosophy. > > ``` I’m guessing you’re using it in the way described by the third bullet point. I’m using it in the way described in the first or second. Is[this](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivist_ethics#Ethics:_rational_self-interest) what you’re describing? > [@](#): > > Objectivism holds that the rights of other human beings are not of direct moral import to the agent who respects them; they acquire their moral purchase through an intermediate step. An Objectivist respects the rights of other human beings out of the recognition of the value to himself or herself of living in a world in which the freedom of action of other rational (or potentially rational) human beings is respected. One’s respect for the rights of others is founded on the objective value, to oneself, of other persons as actual or potential partners in cooperation and trade. According to Rand, the enormous benefits of vastly increased knowledge and wealth are possible in an organized society, but only one in which rights are protected. In many instances, when people are talking about objective morality, they mean some morality that transcends time, place and culture which is defined by an external source such as God. And they interpret what the external source (such as God) through other sources. I’m not sure, but it doesn’t seem like that’s what you’re discussing. ---
**Author:** ![Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/try2b_comprehensive/32/65_2.png) [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Try2B_Comprehensive)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2009, 9:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-morality-is-bs/495820/66 "2009-05-10T21:12:42Z")
I came across the following set of quotes used in a religious argument against torture, and have had a great time chewing on them ever since: > [@](#): > > Frederick Douglass commented famously on how holding a slave slowly ruined the character of the woman who owned him. Martin Luther King Jr. frequently said that the greatest victims of segregation were the white people whose souls were deformed by their own hatred. And Alexander Solzhenitsyn, reflecting on the Soviet gulag, said, “Our torturers have been punished most horribly of all: They are turning into swine; they are departing downward from humanity.” My point is these guys seem to be saying that behaving ‘immorally’ is ‘bad’ for the person who does it. Ruined character, deformed souls, turning into swine… if (IF!) we take these guys seriously, we can infer that ‘immoral’ behavior can degrade the subjective quality of an ‘immoral’ person’s personal experience, among other problems. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2009, 9:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-morality-is-bs/495820/67 "2009-05-10T21:26:16Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > Beating up senior citizens is illegal. I don’t see how an illegal action is a useful example here. > > I think that when someone says “you shouldn’t do x, it’s immoral,” that person hasn’t really said anything. Their statement is contentless. But if x is illegal, then I don’t see why it’s useful to discuss morality. Society has already decided that the person shouldn’t do x. Why is it illegal? ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2009, 9:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-morality-is-bs/495820/68 "2009-05-10T21:40:46Z")
Doesn’t the fact that something is illegal offer a clue that society has also judged it immoral? So mcu so that they went to the trouble of criminalizing it? ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2009, 10:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-morality-is-bs/495820/69 "2009-05-10T22:00:40Z")
> [@Boyo\_Jim](#): > > Doesn’t the fact that something is illegal offer a clue that society has also judged it immoral? So mcu so that they went to the trouble of criminalizing it? Not necessarily. There are some laws that are passed just to enforce a standard. In the US, we drive on the right side of the road, and there’s a law that enforces that, and makes it illegal to drive on the left side. That’s not because we think it’s morally better to drive on the right side of the road than the left, but just because you need some standard that everyone follows. ---
**Author:** ![Birdmonster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/71e660/32.png) [@Birdmonster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Birdmonster)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2009, 10:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-morality-is-bs/495820/70 "2009-05-10T22:02:19Z")
> [@Captain\_Amazing](#): > > Not necessarily. There are some laws that are passed just to enforce a standard. In the US, we drive on the right side of the road, and there’s a law that enforces that, and makes it illegal to drive on the left side. That’s not because we think it’s morally better to drive on the right side of the road than the left, but just because you need some standard that everyone follows. Replace “illegal” with “felonious” ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2009, 11:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-morality-is-bs/495820/71 "2009-05-10T23:27:48Z")
> [@Heffalump\_and\_Roo](#): > > I’m as confused as you. Perhaps (and only perhaps), I’ve found the reason for the disconnect. After googling objective morality, I found that people could be using the term in one of a number of ways. > > I’m guessing you’re using it in the way described by the third bullet point. I’m using it in the way described in the first or second. > Is[this](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivist_ethics#Ethics:_rational_self-interest) what you’re describing? > > In many instances, when people are talking about objective morality, they mean some morality that transcends time, place and culture which is defined by an external source such as God. And they interpret what the external source (such as God) through other sources. I’m not sure, but it doesn’t seem like that’s what you’re discussing. Huh. I have no idea how you got the idea that I was talking about Ayn-Rand-style objectivism; that’s absolutely not what I was talking about. I’d appreciate it if you could reread the post in question; if it still comes across as talking about objectivism, then I’m a complete failure at communication here. No: I was describing a means by which we may establish, objectively, that certain acts are good and other acts are bad, and to the extent that an ethical system agrees with these objective criteria, it is objectively correct or incorrect. This means of judging ethical systems depends only on the definitions of (and existences of) “preference”, “desire,” and “should.” ---
**Author:** ![Heffalump\_and\_Roo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/heffalump_and_roo/32/7691_2.png) [@Heffalump\_and\_Roo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Heffalump_and_Roo)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2009, 12:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-morality-is-bs/495820/72 "2009-05-11T00:27:43Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > Huh. I have no idea how you got the idea that I was talking about Ayn-Rand-style objectivism; that’s absolutely not what I was talking about. I’d appreciate it if you could reread the post in question; if it still comes across as talking about objectivism, then I’m a complete failure at communication here. I’ve read your post so many times I’ve lost track. The thing is that all I can see in it is [moral relativism](http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-relativism/). I went back to search for any links I could find that you sent to **Rand Rover**. Here’s [one I found](http://www.iep.utm.edu/e/ethics.htm), which says: > [@](#): > > Proponents of the other-worldly view typically hold that moral values are objective in the sense that they exist in a spirit-like realm beyond subjective human conventions. They also hold that they are absolute, or eternal, in that they never change, and also that they are universal insofar as they apply to all rational creatures around the world and throughout time. Are you claiming the other-worldly view of objective reality? That’s the only objective morality claimed in that article that I could find. > [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > No: I was describing a means by which we may establish, objectively, that certain acts are good and other acts are bad, and to the extent that an ethical system agrees with these objective criteria, it is objectively correct or incorrect. This means of judging ethical systems depends only on the definitions of (and existences of) “preference”, “desire,” and “should.” Are you saying that there are objective criteria for these “shoulds” that are independent of time, place, culture and society? I looked up an essay on objective morality from an atheist perspective and found this. > [@](#): > > Objective morality, that is to say a morality based on reality ( **instead of subjective beliefs, desires, whims, etc** ), is usually claimed to be the province of religion. Atheism, on the other hand, is supposed to have nothing to offer but evolutionary or emotionalist explanations. In this article, I will defend secular objective morality against both religious absolutism and skeptic subjectivism/relativism. bold added Your explanation of your system doesn’t sound like that either. Could you link to the article that you seem to be explaining that mirrors your arguments here? I’m not seeing where the objective part of your argument that your objective morality is based on. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2009, 12:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-morality-is-bs/495820/73 "2009-05-11T00:42:34Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > Beating up senior citizens is illegal. I don’t see how an illegal action is a useful example here. > > I think that when someone says “you shouldn’t do x, it’s immoral,” that person hasn’t really said anything. Their statement is contentless. But if x is illegal, then I don’t see why it’s useful to discuss morality. Society has already decided that the person shouldn’t do x. Supposing you were starting a new country from scratch, what basis would you use for constructing a criminal justice system? ---
**Author:** ![Heffalump\_and\_Roo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/heffalump_and_roo/32/7691_2.png) [@Heffalump\_and\_Roo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Heffalump_and_Roo)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2009, 12:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-morality-is-bs/495820/74 "2009-05-11T00:59:20Z")
Sorry, forgot my link to the last quote which is [here](http://www.strongatheism.net/library/philosophy/case_for_objective_morality/). ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2009, 1:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-morality-is-bs/495820/75 "2009-05-11T01:39:23Z")
> [@Heffalump\_and\_Roo](#): > > I’ve read your post so many times I’ve lost track. The thing is that all I can see in it is [moral relativism](http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-relativism/). 😕 I confess I’m baffled. Again, I said: “Ergo objective morality: the satisfaction of preferences and desires is prima facie good (i.e., should happen), and the thwarting of preferences and desires is prima facie bad (i.e., shouldn’t happen).” This is not a relativist statement. This is not a subjectivist statement. It is an objective statement: I believe that, where there exists a desire in this universe, it is better (all else being equal) to meet that desire than to thwart it. If you see this as relativist, I’m afraid I don’t know what to tell you. As for some specifics, I encourage you to read about [preference utilitarianism](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preference_utilitarianism). I find this highly influential, except that I believe some strands of PU consider the preference, not the individual holding the preference, as holding primacy when resolving conflicting preferences; I believe that the individual holds primacy. But at that level of detail I’m afraid I’m not equipped to give a clear defense of my position. As for the idea that moral objectivism is the province of theologians, this is not only false, it is (according to what I consider a persuasive argument) impossible to establish a theological basis for objective morality. That is, if we simply define Good to be whatever the Creator likes, then Good ceases to have the meaning we assign it in common parlance. If there is Good in the world, it is independent of what any particular omnipotent entity likes; and we may judge the omnipotent entity along the same standards of Good and Evil that we use to judge other moral agents. Immanuel Kant, John Stuart Mill, and Peter Singer are three influential philosophers who argued for a nontheistic basis for objective morality. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2009, 1:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-morality-is-bs/495820/76 "2009-05-11T01:56:23Z")
> [@Heffalump\_and\_Roo](#): > > Sorry, forgot my link to the last quote which is [here](http://www.strongatheism.net/library/philosophy/case_for_objective_morality/). I’ll add that the first several paragraphs of that article are extremely poorly written and not at all cited; I can’t really make heads or tails of what the person is claiming, and I wouldn’t rely on them for anything. The Internet exemplifies caveat emptor, except you’re not emptoring anything. ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2009, 2:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-morality-is-bs/495820/77 "2009-05-11T02:38:16Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > 😕 > > I confess I’m baffled. Again, I said: “Ergo objective morality: the satisfaction of preferences and desires is prima facie good (i.e., should happen), and the thwarting of preferences and desires is prima facie bad (i.e., shouldn’t happen).” > > This is not a relativist statement. This is not a subjectivist statement. It is an objective statement: I believe that, where there exists a desire in this universe, it is better (all else being equal) to meet that desire than to thwart it. > > … I’m sure you would agree that if my desire is to rape and kill women, it is not good and should be thwarted. I’m sure I could desire thousands of other equally problematic things. I think the point people have been arguing is that there is no universal objective moral good (or bad) that is ujniversally applicable in any practical manner. ---
**Author:** ![Heffalump\_and\_Roo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/heffalump_and_roo/32/7691_2.png) [@Heffalump\_and\_Roo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Heffalump_and_Roo)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2009, 4:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-morality-is-bs/495820/78 "2009-05-11T04:08:50Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > “Ergo objective morality: the satisfaction of preferences and desires is prima facie good (i.e., should happen), and the thwarting of preferences and desires is prima facie bad (i.e., shouldn’t happen).” > > This is not a relativist statement. This is not a subjectivist statement. It is an objective statement: I believe that, where there exists a desire in this universe, it is better (all else being equal) to meet that desire than to thwart it. > > If you see this as relativist, I’m afraid I don’t know what to tell you. > > As for some specifics, I encourage you to read about [preference utilitarianism](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preference_utilitarianism). So is objective morality synonymous with preference utilitarianism? Here’s a [quote] ([Atheist Ethicist: Desire Utilitarianism and Objective Moral Relativism - Part I](http://atheistethicist.blogspot.com/2009/01/desire-utilitarianism-and-objective.html)) from someone who doesn’t think so. > [@](#): > > Desire utilitarianism and Objective Moral Relativism are not the same thing. However, they do not conflict with each other either – which is how both can be true. Admittedly, it’s not the best source. So if you have a better source that tells you that it is, please share it. And here’s [more information](http://alonzofyfe.com/article_ose.shtml) about the nuances between subjective and objective morality. So far, all you’ve done in this post is told me something that you’re claiming is true and then telling me that you don’t know what to tell me if I disagreed. A little more explanation and perhaps some background on where you got your information might be more helpful. I’d be happy to emptor any article, source or argument that you provide (with a caveat). ---
**Author:** ![VarlosZ](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/d78d45/32.png) [@VarlosZ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VarlosZ)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2009, 4:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-morality-is-bs/495820/79 "2009-05-11T04:22:27Z")
> [@Boyo\_Jim](#): > > I’m sure you would agree that if my desire is to rape and kill women, it is not good and should be thwarted. I’m sure I could desire thousands of other equally problematic things. Perhaps I ought not speak for **Left Hand** , but I assume he would tell you that, yes, your preference for raping and killing women is relevant, but it is a preference that is far outweighed by the preference of countless others that the woman in question \*\*not \*\*be raped and killed. ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2009, 4:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-morality-is-bs/495820/80 "2009-05-11T04:26:04Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > Except that . . . no, you are wrong. If “the physicalist critique of ethical norms” says that law is just as unreal as “morality,” then I disagree with it, and therefore haven’t “discovered it.” Ah, then, you’ve only seen part of it. Come back when you’ve attained enlightenment, grasshopper, I really don’t feel like shouting at a brick wall tonight. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-morality-is-bs/495820.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-morality-is-bs/495820.md?page=5)